Newsletter

Posted July 17, 2013 07:18 pm

The Editor's Desk: Attorney General Olens makes right call on Jekyll Island

First, a word of explanation as to why today’s installment of The Editor’s Desk concerns itself with an island 300 or so miles from Athens: For large numbers of native Georgians, and for many longtime residents, Jekyll Island likely is tied to memories of family vacations, Georgia-Florida football weekends and other pleasant experiences. In short, Jekyll Island is woven deeply into the fabric of the state, and as such, there is statewide interest in its fate.

That brings us to the currently unfolding chapter in the island’s history, wherein the Jekyll Island Authority — a nine-member body appointed by the governor, comprising a representative of the state Department of Natural Resources and eight state residents, two of whom must live in coastal Georgia — is wrestling with “the 65-35 rule.” Established in a 1971 state law, the rule limits development on Jekyll Island to no more than 35 percent of the land above the mean high tide mark.

At issue today is whether Jekyll Island’s tidal marsh that happens to be above water at mean high tide, but may be below water at other times, is properly included in calculating the amount of developable land. While tidal marsh obviously isn’t developable, including it in calculations would increase the amount of developable land.

A task force drawing up a new master plan for the island wants to use the amount of land above mean high tide as the baseline for determining developable land, but in an official opinion issued at the request of the Jekyll Island Authority, Attorney General Sam Olens indicated that the task force’s preferred standard can’t be used because it is at odds with the broader standard, including tidal marsh above water at mean high tide, in state law.

“There is no language in the Act [the 1971 state law] directing that the measurement or survey exclude ‘marsh’ or ‘marshlands,’ and such terms are not even mentioned in the relevant Code sections,” Olens wrote.

Olens went on to note, though — and this is important — that “(a)s everyone involved agrees, Jekyll Island is a state treasure that should be preserved in accordance with the wishes of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives.” Olens goes on to “recommend that any such proposal [for changing calculation of developable land area on Jekyll Island] be thoroughly evaluated in a public process and the final action be deferred until the General Assembly has been given the opportunity to weigh in ... .”

Which gets things about half right. While it’s encouraging that the attorney general is advocating a public process for helping to determine Jekyll’s future, it is somewhat less than encouraging that he notes — properly so, of course — that Georgia lawmakers have a role in determining that future.

It’s not hard to imagine that a Republican-dominated legislature, while mindful of the desires of Georgia citizens, might give more sway to the views of developers and others with an interest in maximizing development on Jekyll. That’s particularly problematic in light of the fact that lobbying rules, although they will change somewhat in January, would still allow those developers and other interested parties to treat lawmakers to trips to other coastal locales to make their case for Jekyll.

Olens did the right thing in steering the Jekyll Island issue toward lawmakers — the authority is moving that way, too — but whether lawmakers would do the right thing by the island is very much an open question.